Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In the Interest of Jane Doe I, A Child Under 18 Years of Age. State of v. Jane Doe Ii

November 13, 2008

IN THE INTEREST OF JANE DOE I, A CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. STATE OF IDAHO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JANE DOE II, REAL PARTY OF INTEREST-APPELLANT. IN THE INTEREST OF JANE DOE I, A CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. STATE OF IDAHO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JOHN DOE I, REAL PARTY OF INTEREST-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John P. Luster, District Judge; Hon. Robert B. Burton, Magistrate.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lansing, Judge

2008 Opinion No. 95

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

Appellate decision of the district court affirming the magistrate's order that parents of juvenile probationer submit to random drug testing, reversed.

These consolidated appeals by the parents of a juvenile offender challenge a magistrate court's order requiring that the parents submit to random drug tests as a condition of their daughter's juvenile probation. We conclude that the magistrate's order must be reversed because it violates the parents' Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches.

I.BACKGROUND

Jane Doe I, a minor, was charged under the Juvenile Corrections Act ("JCA"), Idaho Code section 20-501, et seq., with two counts of petit theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(2). She admitted to these crimes, and the magistrate placed her on informal probation for one year. As a term of the juvenile's probation, her parents, John Doe and Jane Doe II (collectively "the parents" or "the Does"), were required to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. They did not challenge this term at that time. Six months later, the State alleged that the juvenile had violated the terms of her probation in a number of ways. Additionally, the magistrate received information that the parents had been using marijuana and that both had tested positive for that drug. The magistrate converted the juvenile's informal probation into a formal probation and again included the term that the parents must submit to random urinalyses and not violate any controlled substance law. The parents appealed this order to the district court, which affirmed. They again appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

The Does contend that the magistrate's order compelling them to submit to drug testing is invalid, both because it exceeds the magistrate's statutory authority and because it constitutes a violation of their privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We consider first the statutory inquiry.

A. Statutory Authority

The magistrate's order that the Does submit to random urinalyses was issued pursuant to I.C. § 20-520(1)(i), which then provided:

(1) Upon the entry of an order finding the juvenile is within the purview of the act, the court shall then hold a sentencing hearing in the manner prescribed by the Idaho juvenile rules to determine the sentence that will promote accountability, competency development and community protection. . . .

(i) In support of an order under the provisions of this section, the court may make an additional order setting forth reasonable conditions to be complied with by the parents . . . including, but not limited to, restrictions on visitation by the parents or one (1) parent, restrictions on the juvenile's associates, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.